Impossible to say, the real issue is that the current tax laws are so ridiculously complex that it almost becomes a matter of opinion subject to court cases to determine how much tax a company or even an individual is required to pay.

You could, for example, remove all the tax avoidance (perfectly legal) schemes - which would mean ISAs are banned (tax-free savings), a self-employed builder can't claim tax relief on their tool, which would also close all the loopholes as well and that should increase the tax take from companies but, naturally, would also hit many savers and small businessmen.

Going back a few years, but does anyone remember the old play.com based in Jersey, which allowed you to order stuff (DVDs mainly) and not pay VAT due to a loophole in the tax laws? Well each and everyone of you who purchased anything from them (me included) is 'guilty' of avoiding taxes and hence reducing the amount available to, say, the NHS - large companies effectively do exactly the same thing albeit on a larger scale.

My point being that the complexity of the tax rules means that as soon as you allow any kind of tax-relief scheme which might be intended to only help Mr and Mrs Average, these same laws can be used by large organisations to legally make much larger savings and any attempt to limit this tends only to make the laws even more complex and open to abuse. Although if you are just doing something which is completely legal then can it be classed as abuse as such?

The only way out is probably a wholesale root and branch reform of both personal and business taxes, but coming up with a system which is fair to everyone, easy to understand and raises the required amount of tax is probably so complex it makes Brexit negotiations look like a piece of cake.

If all companies especially the giant ones and people paid the tax the government set, no loopholes or avoidance, how much of a difference would it make?

People complain about the government but if tax avoidance was gone completely, surely they wouldn’t be so berated? Providing they spent the increases tax money on public services etc.

It’s something that bothers me to be honest as when some people advocate for higher taxes, what difference is it going to make if people won’t pay now?

When Government write up Tax laws they frequently use paid consultants from the Big 4 Accountancy firms, those consultants write in loopholes that their company's can charge clients to exploit

So they get other consultants to write in laws closing those loopholes but those consultants put in new loopholes which they can exploit further

There's a lot to be said for simplifying Tax Law to get rid of all the exceptions, but that means you punish people who genuinely need those exceptions. But once you put in the exceptions then come the loopholes

If all companies especially the giant ones and people paid the tax the government set, no loopholes or avoidance, how much of a difference would it make?

People complain about the government but if tax avoidance was gone completely, surely they wouldn’t be so berated? Providing they spent the increases tax money on public services etc.

It’s something that bothers me to be honest as when some people advocate for higher taxes, what difference is it going to make if people won’t pay now?

There is an inherent contradiction in what you are saying. Companies that use legal methods are paying the tax they owe, no more and no less. The problem here is that our tax system has now got so complex that the wealthy and large corporates can afford the lawyers to find these loopholes and utilise them where smaller companies and the less wealthy cannot. This then contributes to the wealth gap.

What we need is a fundamental reform of the tax system to remove most of these loopholes ( at least those for which the economic benefit is not out weighed by the cost of the tax measure)

I think eventually when we get to a cashless society tax takes will go up considerably. It will also reduce crime and make it harder for criminals who rely largely on cash. It probably won't happen though for another 30 years.

If all companies especially the giant ones and people paid the tax the government set, no loopholes or avoidance, how much of a difference would it make?

People complain about the government but if tax avoidance was gone completely, surely they wouldn’t be so berated? Providing they spent the increases tax money on public services etc.

It’s something that bothers me to be honest as when some people advocate for higher taxes, what difference is it going to make if people won’t pay now?

When Government write up Tax laws they frequently use paid consultants from the Big 4 Accountancy firms, those consultants write in loopholes that their company's can charge clients to exploit

So they get other consultants to write in laws closing those loopholes but those consultants put in new loopholes which they can exploit further

There's a lot to be said for simplifying Tax Law to get rid of all the exceptions, but that means you punish people who genuinely need those exceptions. But once you put in the exceptions then come the loopholes

I think the reality is that politicians try and micromanage behaviour so much via the tax system that loopholes are inevitable. I think most UK-based schemes revolve round exploiting different tax treatments within different types of industry. IIRC, there was a rash of schemes seeking to benefit from funding the film industry to benefit from a lower Corp Tax rate. Something to do with offsetting profits (so no CT payable) in a "normal" company with interest charges on a loan made from a "film industry" company. The profit in this film industry company then didn't incur CT or much CT due to its preferential rate.

That said, paying inspectors to seek out such schemes and shut them down is a very effective use of public funds and more of it should be done.

The multinational tax avoidance that attracts so much ire almost always arises due to exploiting the EU's free movement of capital and differing tax rates across the EU to benefit from transfer pricing. This will be very hard to clamp down on as tax accountants will always be one step ahead of the taxman, if indeed there is anything the taxman can do.

I was mainly referring to the large companies who completely abuse the system and pay a tiny % of tax when they earn crazy amounts.

Obviously if a company or person is struggling financially or wants to make an extra saving then it’s not a big issue for me if they use loopholes.

As was pointed out to you - a company which avoids tax is obeying the law as it stands and they are paying precisely the tax the law requires. The problem is not with the companies, it is with the tax system which has now got so complex that only the large companies have the money to pay someone to find them. The relevant bit of case law comes from the case of Ayrshire Pullman Motor Services v Inland Revenue [1929] 14 Tax Case 754, at 763,764

"No man in the country is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations to his business or property as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel in his stores. The Inland Revenue is not slow, and quite rightly, to take every advantage which is open to it under the Taxing Statutes for the purposes of depleting the taxpayer's pocket. And the taxpayer is in like manner entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Inland Revenue"

Simply put we need to remove most of these loopholes in which case the large companies cannot use them.

If people payed there taxes just like most of us did and then had to apply for a rebate again like most of us did
In stead of their company accountant telling them what they have to pay after the accountant has worked out all the ways they can pay less.
Tax laws should be written in plain ENGLISH with on double speak meanings that could take a court to deside what is meant.

I was mainly referring to the large companies who completely abuse the system and pay a tiny % of tax when they earn crazy amounts.

Obviously if a company or person is struggling financially or wants to make an extra saving then it’s not a big issue for me if they use loopholes.

I worked for a Major Multinational, we never made a profit in any market all the time I was there. Mainly due to us not owning the name of our company, the cost of operating under the name was exorbitant and paid to a holding company in the Caribbean. Quite simple but very effective

I was mainly referring to the large companies who completely abuse the system and pay a tiny % of tax when they earn crazy amounts.

Obviously if a company or person is struggling financially or wants to make an extra saving then it’s not a big issue for me if they use loopholes.

As was pointed out to you - a company which avoids tax is obeying the law as it stands and they are paying precisely the tax the law requires. The problem is not with the companies, it is with the tax system which has now got so complex that only the large companies have the money to pay someone to find them. The relevant bit of case law comes from the case of Ayrshire Pullman Motor Services v Inland Revenue [1929] 14 Tax Case 754, at 763,764

"No man in the country is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations to his business or property as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel in his stores. The Inland Revenue is not slow, and quite rightly, to take every advantage which is open to it under the Taxing Statutes for the purposes of depleting the taxpayer's pocket. And the taxpayer is in like manner entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Inland Revenue"

Simply put we need to remove most of these loopholes in which case the large companies cannot use them.

The UK nevertheless now has a general anti tax avoidance rule in the Finance Act 2013. So it is not legal tax avoidance if it is abusing tax law for the purpose of tax avoidance rather than engage in the economic activity the tax avoidance law was supposed to help/encourage.

I know of a plumber who actually still comes out to repair or change tap washers or fix the ball **** in your cistern, he does these kind of jobs on his way home, charges a tenner (cash) and its his beer money / pocket money.

I know several pensioners who go out and do a bit of gardening for a few quid in the hand, it gives them a bit extra for things which the pension alone cannot provide.

I have known out of work men to do menial tasks and jobs in the fishing industry to make ends meet until they get back on their feet - help make crab pots, bait fishing lines, collecting mussels and skain them ( open and prepare them for bait ).

If all companies especially the giant ones and people paid the tax the government set, no loopholes or avoidance, how much of a difference would it make?

People complain about the government but if tax avoidance was gone completely, surely they wouldn’t be so berated? Providing they spent the increases tax money on public services etc.

It’s something that bothers me to be honest as when some people advocate for higher taxes, what difference is it going to make if people won’t pay now?

When Government write up Tax laws they frequently use paid consultants from the Big 4 Accountancy firms, those consultants write in loopholes that their company's can charge clients to exploit

So they get other consultants to write in laws closing those loopholes but those consultants put in new loopholes which they can exploit further

There's a lot to be said for simplifying Tax Law to get rid of all the exceptions, but that means you punish people who genuinely need those exceptions. But once you put in the exceptions then come the loopholes

When will the apologists for "tax avoidance" stop bleating about ISAs and other small, capped savings schemes available
to ordinary people?

The few quid a year that the miserable rate of interest on a few thousand pounds savings these "avoids" is utterly negligable
compared to some wealthy footballer or politician or other dodger each avoiding paying 45% or whatever on MILLIONS !!!

It’s almost become a national sport to avoid or evade HMRC unfortunately.

Not just a national one but an international one where governments compete to have the most attractive tax regime. If the UK was to increase corporate taxation then businesses would just divert their cash flow through a different juridstriction.

If all companies especially the giant ones and people paid the tax the government set, no loopholes or avoidance, how much of a difference would it make?

People complain about the government but if tax avoidance was gone completely, surely they wouldn’t be so berated? Providing they spent the increases tax money on public services etc.

It’s something that bothers me to be honest as when some people advocate for higher taxes, what difference is it going to make if people won’t pay now?

Almost a strawman. The vast majority of people are on PAYE. Plus a huge number of people are on ZHC and minimum wage jobs so pay almost no tax anyway. The biggest "missing" tax take is that there are companies like Amazon who have a huge number of employees who pay minimal tax because of their low pay and the company itself then pays no tax. So the total tax take from a major revenue generator and employer in the UK economy is negligible

Parliament is largely able to determine whatever tax laws it wishes to including removing tax avoidance allowances. Unlike tax evasion whereby no one really knows how much tax is evaded HMRC largely does with tax avoidance.

I was mainly referring to the large companies who completely abuse the system and pay a tiny % of tax when they earn crazy amounts.

Obviously if a company or person is struggling financially or wants to make an extra saving then it’s not a big issue for me if they use loopholes.

I worked for a Major Multinational, we never made a profit in any market all the time I was there. Mainly due to us not owning the name of our company, the cost of operating under the name was exorbitant and paid to a holding company in the Caribbean. Quite simple but very effective

If people payed there taxes just like most of us did and then had to apply for a rebate again like most of us did

Which is a waste of money, given that you are moving money from one place to another, then back to where it started - which is why we have the system we do. Incidentally most of us do not have complex financial affairs and the opportunity to claim back is just not there.

By the way I would take tax estimates of the gap with a pinch of salt - I still remember the tax office quoting what it would get from a tax change and then when they finally published figures (after a decade and a FIR) the true figure turned out to be less than 1% the figure they quoted.

Tax laws should be written in plain ENGLISH with on double speak meanings that could take a court to deside what is meant.

Been saying that for a long time (even before I was posting on here) - it would go some way to reducing the income gap as well since everyone can work out what they owe rather than only those who can afford expensive tax lawyers.

I was mainly referring to the large companies who completely abuse the system and pay a tiny % of tax when they earn crazy amounts.

Obviously if a company or person is struggling financially or wants to make an extra saving then it’s not a big issue for me if they use loopholes.

As was pointed out to you - a company which avoids tax is obeying the law as it stands and they are paying precisely the tax the law requires. The problem is not with the companies, it is with the tax system which has now got so complex that only the large companies have the money to pay someone to find them. The relevant bit of case law comes from the case of Ayrshire Pullman Motor Services v Inland Revenue [1929] 14 Tax Case 754, at 763,764

"No man in the country is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations to his business or property as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel in his stores. The Inland Revenue is not slow, and quite rightly, to take every advantage which is open to it under the Taxing Statutes for the purposes of depleting the taxpayer's pocket. And the taxpayer is in like manner entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Inland Revenue"

Simply put we need to remove most of these loopholes in which case the large companies cannot use them.

The UK nevertheless now has a general anti tax avoidance rule in the Finance Act 2013. So it is not legal tax avoidance if it is abusing tax law for the purpose of tax avoidance rather than engage in the economic activity the tax avoidance law was supposed to help/encourage.

Never liked the GAAR ever since the S660a debacle. That was when the government of the time swore that tax was owed, the PMG lied about a previous debate (or to be charitable plainly did not read Hansard or was ignorant), the tax office said the tax was owed - it went all the way to the House of Lords - who ruled that the tax was not owed. It was the last case heard by the Law Lords before they were replaced with the Supreme Court.

I've come across tax inspectors who have lied - one even had to apologise in a written statement in court the lying was so bad.

So frankly there is distinct possibility of such a rule being abused and then it falls to the taxpayer to prove the taxman wrong - with all the costs concerned.